JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, J. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 5.2.1985 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gonda, in Sessions Trial No. 434 of 1983, State v. Kripa Ram. 2. Swatantra Kumar Audhaulia applicant is an Advocate practising in the district courts at Gonda. He is appearing in Sessions Trial No.434 of 1983, State v. Kripa Ram and is representing accused Kunney. On 5.2.85 the statement of Kunney under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The last question put to accused Kunney is reproduced hereunder:- "Aur Kuchh Kahna Hai?" The reply of the accused in full is also quoted hereunder:- "Ram Gopal Singh, Akbar Ali Gaon men khullam khulla kahte hai ki Judge saheb (yani app. Sessions Judge) ko mila liya hai our ab saja karvai beghair nahin chhoren ge." The learned Sessions Judge asked another question which is quoted as under:- "Un gao walon ka naam Batao ge Jinse Ram Gopal our Akbar Ali ne aisa Khullam khulla kaha?" Learned counsel Sri Swatantra Kumar objected to the court question on the ground that it amounted to cross- examination of the accused and was legally not permissible. Since Sri Swatantra Kumar was probably obstructing the functioning of the Court hence proceedings were drawn and he was fined Rs. 2000/- which was to be paid till the rising of the Court and in default to undergo three days imprisonment. It is short order and hence it is being mentioned in verbatim:- "It is clear contempt and against the decorum of the Court. Sri Swatantra Kumar is hereby fined to pay an amount of Rs. 2000/-. In the event of default he shall undergo imprisonment for three days. He shall be taken into custody in default of fine upto the rising of the court." 3. This order seems to have led to some commotion in the district courts and intervention of the District Judge was also sought. Time was allowed for redress with liberty to approach the Court on an application of Sri Swatantra Kumar for depositing the fine. It is in these circumstances that this petition is before this Court. 4. On the motion being presented before this Court comments were called for from the learned Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is in these circumstances that this petition is before this Court. 4. On the motion being presented before this Court comments were called for from the learned Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. A long reply has been received from the trial court throwing light on the history and background relating to the aforesaid sessions trial. It transpires from the record that from 15.2.84 as many as 22 applications were moved in the case for some purpose or the other. It appears that all out effort was being made on behalf of the accused persons who were on bail to see that the case was not heard by the court concerned. Such things often happen in cases that are being tried by courts which are well known for recording conviction.. It is indeed becoming difficult now a days for a fair and honest officer to carry on his work. Lawyers have been acting in utter disregard of the fact that huge arrears of the cases are pending in each court. It is a high time that lawyers should become conscious of the fact that they not only owe allegiance to their clients but also are duty bound to assist the court in dispensing justice efficaciously. 6. A perusal of the statement made by Kunney leaves no doubt that it was highly contemptuous and scrupulous and in my opinion the learned lawyer was also not justified in raising the objection because it was not in the form of a cross-examination. Be that as it may, the Judges while exercising jurisdiction in such matters should not be hyper-sensitive where distortions and criticisms overstep limits but it is necessary to deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge did not carefully look into the provision under which he was intending to draw proceedings. If the learned Judge was of the view that contempt had been committed of his court then proper course for him was to refer the matter to the High Court which is vested with the jurisdiction to punish contempt of the subordinate judiciary. The imposition of fine of Rs. If the learned Judge was of the view that contempt had been committed of his court then proper course for him was to refer the matter to the High Court which is vested with the jurisdiction to punish contempt of the subordinate judiciary. The imposition of fine of Rs. 2000/- is also unwarranted, if, it is held that the Judge proceeded under Section 345 Cr.P.C. because, the maximum sentence of fine permissible under the said provision is Rs.200/-. Moreover there is a procedure prescribed under Section 345 Cr.P.C. which too has not been observed by the learned Presiding officer. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 7. It is needless to mention that the very training of a Judge blesses him with insensitivity as opposed to hyper-sensitivity. The Judges are always seeking good reasons to explain wrong conduct. They know there are always two faces of a coin. They neither give nor take offence because they deal with persons and situations impersonally though with understanding. Judges more than others realise the foibles, the frustrations, the under currents and the tensions of litigants and litigation. Yet the strain of notification of the litigation cannot be allowed to lead litigants to tarnish, terrorise and destroy the system of administration of justice through verification campaign made against a Judge. The Judges do not require any protection. They can take guard of themselves. What is to be protected is the right and interest of the public in the due administration of justice. It was open to the learned Judge to draw proceedings against the person uttering words which intended to tarnish the administration of Justice. 8. I am also not prepared to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that an irresponsible statement was made by the client without the knowledge of the learned lawyer. The Judges and the lawyers are like the two wheels of a chariot which are duty bound to move in harmony lest the image of temple of justice may be destroyed at the hands of reckless litigants. 9. It is, however, always open for a Presiding officer to draw proceedings in accordance with law if at all it is necessary to protect the system of administration of justice. 10. 9. It is, however, always open for a Presiding officer to draw proceedings in accordance with law if at all it is necessary to protect the system of administration of justice. 10. It is rather unfortunate that on account of the hasty action of the learned Judge the order passed by him although morally may be justifiable but cannot be sustained legally and is hereby set aside. 11. No other point has been pressed. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion the order passed by the learned Judge is set aside. The case in the interest of justice will be sent to the District Judge and he may either dispose it of himself or transfer it to a Judge other than the present Presiding officer. 13. Criminal Misc. Case No. 204 of 1985 is accordingly allowed and the order impugned there set aside.